It's written by our favorite Concerned Woman for America, J. Matt Barber.
With its 2003 Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court circumvented the constitutional process and arbitrarily imposed "same-sex marriage" on the people of Massachusetts in what amounted to a brazen and contemptuous act of judicial activism.There's that fundie buzzword again. How do you know when it's "judicial activism" or just "the Court deciding something I don't like"? Has the court ever committed "judicial activism" to make a ruling fundies agree with? And if so, why aren't they out protesting in the streets?
Oh, and since when are people's individual rights up for a vote? I'm sure when Congress tried to pass another stem cell funding bill, and Bush vetoed it, the fundies were absolutely livid. Or, maybe not.
Now members of the liberal Massachusetts state legislature have surrendered to the demands of the militant homosexual lobby and have betrayed both the citizens of Massachusetts and the democratic process by preventing voters from weighing in on this crucial issue.Or maybe the legislature actually agrees with its decision and hasn't "surrendered" to anyone. Of course, if they did, it would be disappointing to discover that the state senators weren't voting their conscience. But at least we have the CWFA on our side, ready to raise a public outcry over any politician who caves to special interests. Or, maybe not.
Prior to Goodridge, the concept of a man "marrying" a man or a woman "marrying" a woman was widely and properly considered preposterous.And prior to Loving v. Virginia, the idea of a white man marrying a black woman was widely and properly considered preposterous. And prior to the Internet, the idea of instantaneous communication with someone half a world away was widely and properly considered preposterous. And prior to the Wright Brothers, the idea of a machine that could carry people into the air was widely and properly considered preposterous. It sure is a good thing we never do anything differently than it was done before. EVER.
However, with their decision in Goodridge, four of the court's seven social mad scientists have zapped artificial life into a cultural "gay-marriage" Frankenstein monster. And that radical and bizarre new concept has been terrorizing the countryside every since.Gee, Matt, paranoid much?
After the Massachusetts Supreme Court - through judicial fiat - made Massachusetts the only state to recognize "same-sex marriage" by miraculously divining that the framers of the state constitution really intended that Patrick Henry could marry Henry Patrick...Aww, ha ha ha! "Henry Patrick!" That's so clever, Matt! Go ahead, say it. You know you want to. "Adam and Steve," right Matt? Ha ha ha! You fundies kill me.
I don't recall anyone in the Massachusetts Supreme Court ever saying that they were "miraculously divining" anything. They did, however, believe that when the framers of the Massacusetts State Constitution granted equality to all citizens, they didn't intend that you needed to be a Chosen One before it applied to you.
...many in Massachusetts - embarrassed by the court's unprecedented leftist extremism - felt that their state had become a laughingstock and initiated the constitutional process in an effort to undo this court forced insanity.Yes, many stupid, hateful, bigoted morons.
Recognizing that "if everything is marriage … nothing is marriage at all," the good folks of Massachusetts decided to fight back and to defend the cultural cornerstone of legitimate marriage.Well, hell, the fundies and I agree on something! I would love to defend "legitimate marriage!" I do all the time! I'm doing it in this very blog!
In 2005, supporters of marriage accumulated enough petition signatures to send a constitutional amendment to the Massachusetts legislature which, if put to a vote by the people and passed, would have properly restored the definition of marriage to one man - one woman.It would have restored the definition to one man, one woman all right. You still have yet to demonstrate why this is "proper."
At that time, lawmakers refused to take up the initiative for a vote. But, after it became abundantly clear that by ignoring the measure they were shirking their constitutional duty, the passive-aggressive patsies begrudgingly got around to doing their job.You know, Matt, you have an awfully hateful attitude, and a terribly smart mouth for a fundie. Jesus would be ashamed of you.
However, in order for the amendment to make it onto the 2008 ballot, at least 50 legislators had to vote in support of the measure in two consecutive sessions. But despite broad support and almost two hundred thousand petition signatures, lawmakers thumbed their collective nose at their constituents and voted by just over a three-to-one margin (151-45) during the second session to deny the citizens of Massachusetts a voice.Since when does the entire state get to vote on whether a couple is allowed to get married? How many people voted for your marriage, Matt? Can I come to your kid's nuptial election? I'd love to vote "nay," just to piss you off.
Maybe the Massachusetts legislature will take a look at your "will of the people" when you can present a petition that represents more than 3% of the population.
Several representatives inexplicably pulled a 180 degree turn. The measure passed with 62 votes during the first term, but about a dozen lawmakers crumbled under the pressure during the second term and changed their position.There you go again with this "crumbling under the pressure" business. Isn't the entire purpose of your article to make legislators "crumble under the pressure?"
There were even allegations of a quid pro quo for some of those who changed their votes. It remains to be seen what - if any - payoff they will receive for their political treachery....he said with a shamelessly un-Christian, self-righteous sneer. Oh well, at least we know the CWFA can be counted on to oppose shelling out money to political campaigns in return for favors. Or, maybe not.
In any event, the heat was on from both the homosexual lobby and liberal big hitters in Washington - such as Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama - who desperately wanted to kill the measure so that the "gay marriage" issue - which has historically helped elect conservatives - would not be on the table in 2008.Will you people stop trying to find conspiracies around every corner? Your paranoia is really starting to reek. It just so happens that Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama are in favor of gay marriage because they're not hateful, small-minded bigots like you, Matt.
(Ironically, they may have unwittingly made it more of an issue than it would have been had the amendment gone forward.)Aww, you fundies! Always trying to help out your opponents! That's magnanimous of you! Let's have a big ol' group hug! Oh, sorry, that would be gay.
There were four Massachusetts state legislators in particular who were most disloyal to their constituents - two Democrats and two Republicans - elected in 2006 after expressly running on a pro-family platform and a promise to vote in favor of the amendment. Republicans Richard Ross and Paul Loscocco and Democrats Angelo Puppolo and Geraldo Alicea simply lied to their constituents by promising to vote for the amendment and then shamelessly breaking that promise.You're a fine one to talk about being shameless, Matt. Oh well, at least I can count on the Concerned Women for America, and J. Matt Barbiedoll, to lash out at politicians for changing their parties and betraying their constituents. I'm sure they were furious that liberal Mitt Romney slid right in order to run for President. Oh. Hm. Maybe not.
Buoyed by their demonstrated ability to silence the voters of Massachusetts, homosexual activists are now pushing to repeal a 1913 law that prevents homosexuals from coming from other states to "marry" in Massachusetts. The goal is to set the table for same-sex couples to "marry" in Massachusetts and to then return to their home states to file federal lawsuits raising the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution in an attempt to force those states to recognize Massachusetts "gay marriages."Okay, and the problem is...?
True to form, liberals plan to once again use activist courts to achieve what they were unable to accomplish through legitimate and democratic means.Like using the courts, you mean? How come the courts are only "illegitimate" when fundies aren't using them?
If the 1913 law is repealed and homosexual activists have success with like-minded judges, then we can expect the "gay marriage" levy to break, flooding the countryside with Hurricane Katrina-like destruction to the marriage and family foundation upon which our society rests.Yeah, just like Hurricane Katrina. The only difference is that one is a law that gives people rights, and the other one is a destructive force of nature that destroys buildings. Very similar.
If two people of the same sex must be allowed to "marry," then what of bisexuals? Don't they have a "right" to marry the persons of their choosing?Well, yeah...?
Don't they have a "right" to marry both the man and the woman they love? What possible justification would there be for preventing polygamist marriages once the true definition of marriage is done away with?Well, you're confusing bisexuals with polygamists, but basically, the answer is the same. They should have the right to marry whoever they want. It doesn't bother me in the least. I mean, sure, I don't want to get multiple-married, but nobody is saying I have to!
And what about incest? A brother and a sister?(Shrug) Fine with me. Maybe it's a little icky, but what two people whom I've never met are doing in private is really none of my business. Not sure what I'd do about them inbreeding, but, we're a long way from having to worry about that.
A father and a daughter?Depends. Is she of consenting age?
If it's discrimination to prevent same-sex couples from "marrying," then why not couples who just happen to be blood relatives? Once the castle gate of traditional marriage bursts open and that "gay marriage" creature escapes - there's nothing to contain him … anything goes.Well, I hate to put too fine a point on this, Barbie, but, you're a moron. The only thing that would legalize polygamy is legalizing polygamy. Your stupid slippery slope argument doesn't work; marriage has been on a slippery slope for a thousand years.
Thousands of years of history, every major world religion and good ole' fashioned common sense dictate that legitimate marriage exists only between a male and female and that it's a sacred and fundamental cornerstone to any healthy society.Weren't you listening, Matt? "Thousands of years of history" have shown absolutely nothing of the sort. Marriage has changed so many times, and taken so many definitions throughout the world, that for a fundie to sit back and say "This is how it's always been, everywhere!" is simply laughable. Don't believe me? Read this. Hell, I'm sure even Conservapedia will tell you that marriage has undergone numerous changes throughout the years. Okay, maybe that one was a little too much to ask for.
Although this ballot initiative wasn't perfect, in that it would have grandfathered existing "same-sex marriages" in the state...And we can't have that! Everybody who is already wed should now have to get a divorce, because the fundies don't like who they married!
...the citizens of Massachusetts should have at least been allowed to speak.No they should not have, because it's none of their fucking business.
But instead, Massachusetts lawmakers have arrogantly and disdainfully told their own constituents to shut up and go home.No, they told the 200,000 fundies to shut up and go home. I don't think there was anything arrogant about it; you're the ones trying to tell everybody else who they're allowed to marry!
Still, pro-family forces in Massachusetts and across America will fight on as the left continues to ramp up efforts to radically redefine marriage into oblivion.I don't know anybody who wants to "redefine marriage into oblivion." Could you please show me someone?
As for the "gay marriage" monster: In the words of Dr. Frankenstein - "It's alive!" And it's pounding on the castle door.NNNOOOOO!!!! We can't pass a Constitutional Amendment! That would be "against the will of the people!" Why do you want to subvert democracy, Barb-Wire? Why do you hate America?
At least it's alive for now - in Massachusetts. And it's going to take both a strong-willed America, and very likely a federal constitutional amendment, to kill it once and for all.
Only then can we put "gay marriage" back in the ground where it belongs.Wow, I was kidding about the "hate" comment, but you really are a hateful piece of shit. You hate gays. You hate gay marriage. You hate everything that disrupts your happy, white, Christian stranglehold on the power in America.
You're an angry, angry man, Barbie. You and your fundie-clones lost this one. Get over it.
18 comments:
Wow. WOW! I don't even know where to begin. I've been following fundie rants for years, and this one is a doozy.
First of all, I still can't get over how the Concerned "Women" for America can't seem to find any concerned women to write their diatribes.
And since when is a legislative body of elected representatives voting on an issue "ignoring the will of the people"? That's how things work in a republic like we have. If the fundies want a direct democracy, where every citizen votes on every single issue of government, they can go off and start their own country. They might want to be warned, however, that such a governmental structure is unworkable in large populations. But then fundies never had much of a grip of reality.
I'm also really impressed that way back in 1913, the people of Massachusetts were that concerned about gay marriage starting in Massachusetts and spreading to the rest of the country. Apparently they had a collective psychic vision that told them that 94 years in the future Massachusetts would end marriage discrimination. In order to nip this in the bud (which sounds vaguely homosexual, BTW), they rushed a law into effect, so it would be there almost a century later when it was needed.
In other words, I sincerely doubt that the unnamed "1913 law" that Barbie is referring to was targeted at gays. It almost certainly was aimed at interracial marriage. But Barbie didn't want to SAY that! Because if he did, everyone would realize just how hateful and bigoted he is. His prejudices belong to 1913, not 2007.
Also, we need to push back on these nitwits, every time they talk about "The next thing you know, somebody will marry a snake!" That is a straw man. We can't let them continue to bring that up.
Marriage is NOT on a slippery slope. It is on a staircase.
Ending marriage discrimination now would only have the effect of giving a minority the same rights that the majority already enjoys. Marriage is a civil contract between two people. It's time to end the discrimanatory practice of only allowing heterosexuals to marry.
Polygamy would not and could not be allowed under an extension of the current arguments in favor of gay marriage for the simple reason that no members of society are currently given that right. Likewise for marrying your favorite sheep.
Incestual marriage is the closest thing to a slippery slope, but because of the inbreeding issue, there is an actual harm to society. This adds an extra burden that gay marriage doesn't have. The courts usually look at such ramifications, so I think it's unlikely that a ruling in favor of brother/sister marriage would happen.
A father and a daughter?
Depends. Is she of consenting age?
Oh man Watcher you did not just say that...
Parent-child relationships are without exception bad becuase of the hugely asymmetrical power relationship involved. Sure it is possible for it to work out somehow I suppose but I would never support any legislation that allowed it sinply because of the severe psychological harm involved in nearly all cases. You simply can't have a healthy relationship under those sorts of circumstances.
Also inbreeding is bad and icky =P
The rest of the article is spot on however.
Oh, lord. I was at a Pride parade this weekend, and we managed to get a spot just 50 feet from some protesters. They had a microphone, and spent the whole parade spouting out ridiculous crap like this.
Why is this such a big issue for these idiots? How can a gay couple's marriage make a straight couple's marriage less meaningful? There's bad straight marriages all the time, and they don't make other marriages mean less.
"Honey, we've been married for 50 years, we've raised three beautiful children, and I love you more now than ever. But the gay couple across the street got married, so all that means nothing now. I want a divorce."
I pictured that whole articleh in sort of a gossipy eminine Barbie-ish tone, skipping over the part that said the author's name was J. Matt Barber till I scrolled back. It didn help that ya vcalled him Barbie, though I know a lot of Christian "Womens'" and "Girls'" things are written by mens, which justmakes me think of ebil old daddy checking up on 'em to make sure they don't turn *gasp* feminist from having women, no matter how fundie or unempowered, or repressed or even rabidly "I dun want rights I just wanna man and my Gawd" they are....
I'm sure Matt wants ta be considered a Barbie, disregarding the fact the thing's called Concerned Women for America.
I suggest reviewing something from Brio Mag next, particularly from Dear Susie or maybe the poetry section with such gems as poetry about how the girls can't live without being covered by Gawd. These are usually girls between the ages of 12 and 14 writing those poems, which makes me fear for other girls my age....(fourteen) O_O;;;. They seem so oppressed, too, kept permanently in a feeling of hopelessness and insane blind love, scribbling down letters to Susie whenever they're not sure what to believe for fear that it'll make God hate them and quit loving 'em (or love them less) rather than trying to make the most of things and think things over themselves, making up their own minds, which is probly a secular idea anyways.
I also remember when you reviewed an article from Breakaway back when I used to post anonymousleh.
Saros and bay-of-fundie:
Okay, I was being a bit childishly smartass just to offend as many fundies as possible. I didn't give that part a whole lot of thought, I just wrote it hoping to make some fundie mad. I'm not really ready to start supporting incest, and certainly don't plan to write any blog entries supporting it! Don't worry!
Similarly, dookia, I don't actually think J. Matt Barber thinks he's a woman; that would be a sin and he would have been shipped off to some fundie re-education camp long ago!
I do want to hit Brio, but so far, there's nothing that I've seen that lends itself to a full-scale assault. I was thinking, just like you, that Dear Susie would be my best bet. As soon as she writes a column that I feel like I can tear up, I will.
The poetry would be hard, because it's not like an essay, promoting some particular viewpoint. It's more just like, collectively, something you shake your head and sigh at.
1958fury, what did you yell back at them?
Re: incest -- brother-sister and cousin incest is on the bubble of defensible as long as children aren't allowed, IMHO, but as a general rule, when it happens there's some underlying issue there that indicates that all is not well in that family to begin with. Intergenerational incest, especially parent-child, is not defensible at all, for the same reason teachers shouldn't sleep with their students, nor bosses their subordinates.
re: polygamous marriage -- sleep with whoever you want, polyamory is fine as long as everyone involved can handle it, but multiple marriage is just asking for massive headaches. Sort of like trying to schedule a party between five very busy people.
As for the Concerned Men In Drag of America, I imagine they still had some veneer of honesty when Beverly LaHaye was their talking head, but even then, I kind of get the sense that the very word "concerned" in a pressure group's name indicates reactionary politics.
Hi, you have been tagged (apologies if you already have and/or not into this sort of thing). :-)
http://evolutionspace.wordpress.com/2007/06/28/ive-been-tagged/
Keep up the great work!
1958fury, what did you yell back at them?
Nothing, darn it... but some of the other people did. Some of the parade cars would stop next to them and hold down their horn so you couldn't hear what they were saying.
I guess we Brits shouldn't laugh so much at citizens of the United States. We have our own fundamentalist lunatics as well.
Recently, the United Kingdom was hit by some quite devastating floods, with a number of fatalities. The Rt Rev Graham Dow, Bishop of Carlisle, responded with his view that the floods represent "God's" vengeance against gay marriage, moral decadence, and irreligious atheism.
Check out the article I linked: it's a scream for those who think that delusional evangelical psychosis is an exclusive American phenomenon.
Alan.
I was very amused when I heard about the bill failing in Massachusetts. I knew stuff like this had to come out of the woodwork.
@ Alan McKensie--Yep, I heard about that. Ridiculous. I even emailed the guy who made the comments to tell him to love his damn neighbour.
@ The Watcher - on my blog you're linked.
I am and have always been hetero-sexual. I have been married and divorced. I am currently getting ready to re-marry. All of this has been with women and has spanned some 27 years.
Never once did gay marriage have any thing to do with any of what I have experienced.
I have many gay friends both male and female. They are just people like me. And to counter this fundie pile of crap none of those friends was ever anything but helpful and supportive even when I was going through my divorce.
For some reason these religious idiots think the gays are out to recruit and destroy. I must say their thought process must be as swift as a dinosaur..huge body walnut sized brain.
Lith,
I've reciprocated. Welcome to my links :)
@ The Watcher - Cheers
I have never got a reasonable explanation about how gay marriage affects anyone else's's marriage.
"I am just thankful that the Episcopalian Church's founder, Henry VIII, and his wife Catherine of Aragon, and his wife Anne Boleyn, and his wife Jane Seymour, and his wife Anne of Cleves, and his wife Katheryn Howard, and his wife Katherine Parr are no longer here to suffer through this assault on traditional Christian marriage."
I just can't see how gay marriage could possibly have the debilitating effect on marriage that Britney Spears getting married "as a joke" had. I mean, if she didn't get in trouble for that stunt ( by "christians")and the way it demeans marriage (as defined as a deep, intimate relationship between two people), then they really have no right to say anything about gays. Or the fact that quite a few "christian" men cheat on their wives, or the spousal abuser. If none of those things demeans marriage enough to get "christians" to yell and scream, then it's a pretty damn shoddy excuse for why gays can't marry. And I don't see "christians" asking government to invalidate a marriage, whether or not the victimized spouse agrees, on cheating or spousal abuse.
Fine. I'm a WASatheist. That make you happy?
Connecting homosexual marriage to incest is a vague and ignorant stab at the issue, there is a massive difference between a brother and a sister imbreeding and two gay people being given the same rights as everyone else, it's a simple fact of their right to be recognized by society as a legitimate couple. When will people in this day and age move past the fear that they seem to have and address the real issues, the bigotry and prejudice is pathetic.
Post a Comment